Beldanga Violence|Supreme Court Directs NIA To Submit Sealed Cover Report To Calcutta High Court

The Supreme Court, today, has directed the National Investigation Agency to submit a report before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in a sealed cover, regarding the information for any prima facie case under the provisions of the UAPA Act for investigation regarding the Beldanga violence, Murshidabad.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by the State of West Bengal challenging Calcutta High Court directions to the State to utilize Central Armed Police Forces in Murshidabad district's Beldanga area to prevent the recurrence of violence.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "In this regard, we do not deem it appropriate to make any observations at this premature stage, suffice it will be direct the NIA to submit the report, during the course of investigation, before the Division Bench of the High Court in a sealed cover as to whether, on the basis of the material/information gathered by it, any prime facie case for further investigation, for pre-investigation...for investigation, under provisions of the UAPA Act is made out or not...Since there are only passing observations in the impugned order of the High Court, without a definite opinion in relation to the attraction of the above stated Act, we request the High Court to consider the status report/report to be submitted by NIA independently and issue consequential directions...".

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee represented the State of West Bengal, while ASG S.V. Raju appeared for the NIA, and Senior PS Patwalia represented Suvendu Adhikari.

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the interlocutory order dated January 20, 2026, passed by the High Court at Calcutta in a suo motu matter, containing various directions, including leaving it open for the central government to take an appropriate decision regarding the conduct of the investigation by invoking powers under subsection 5 of section 6 of the National Investigative Agency Act.

The Court ordered, "It is a matter of record that pursuant to the discretionary option given by the High Court in the Impugned order, Government of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs has wide Order...has directed the National Investigative Agency to take up the investigation of the case FIR No.0051, dated 17-1-2026, registered by West Bengal Police at Police Station Beldanga, District Murshidabad, under different provisions of the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, National Highway Act, BNS, 2023 and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, etc."

It directed, "As regards various other contentions, so to be raised on behalf of the Petitioner, since the matter is still pending consideration before the High Court...we grant liberty to the petitioner to raise those contentions before the High Court, where the matter is still pending. And so similarly, if the order passed by the Government of India, entrusting the investigation to the NIA has also been challenged before the High Court..."

Justice Bagchi said, "Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as an economic threat," and questioned whether the blockade of a highway, while disruptive to goods and services, truly constituted a terrorist act under the strict definition of the statute.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee argued that the NIA invoked its suo motu powers without even perusing the case diary or state police records.

Justice Bagchi termed this a "pre-decisional conclusion," asking the NIA how it determined Section 15 was applicable without looking at the foundational documents.

The Bench noted that while the High Court had allowed the NIA to consider a probe, the agency appeared to have bypassed the necessary review of materials before asserting federal jurisdiction.

ASG S.V. Raju argued that the violence was not merely a protest but involved "deadly weapons," arson targeting specific shops, and the use of petrol bombs. He emphasized the location's sensitivity, describing it as a "porous border near Bangladesh," which necessitated a federal probe. The ASG also alleged non-cooperation from the State of West Bengal, stating that despite the FIR registration, the state police were refusing to hand over the investigation papers to the NIA.

ASG Raju said, "They don't want to give the record and make submissions, very unfair."

To which Banerjee responded, "Unfair is on your part, who are unfair as far as the state of West Bengal is concerned."

The Court ordered, "At this stage, it has been brought to our notice by Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjeethat State of West Bengal has filed a separate writ petition, diary number 7368/2026, before this Court, challenging the order dated 28th January, 2026 of Government of India, whereby the investigation has been entrusted to NIA. We are of the view that the legality of that order can also be examined at this stage by the High Court, which is already seized of the matter."

Disposing the Petitions, the Supreme Court transferred the West Bengal government's challenge against the NIA notification (dated January 28, 2026) to the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court requested the High Court—specifically the bench headed by the Chief Justice—to decide the legality of the NIA's probe independently, without being influenced by prior "passing observations."

Cause Title: The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Suvendu Adhikari & Ors. [SLP (Crl.)2369 of 2026]